Again, a marriage of convenience because Stalin didn’t believe that Hitler would attack that soon. Given enough information, Churchill could have changed the events.
Completely wrong.
The US didn’t need to enter the war one day earlier and the war could have ended a year earlier. The Pacific War would have been prevented or completely changed as per my earlier post.
In 1940 through 1941, Britain needed planes and pilots. By starting full scale production of US built planes in late 1940 and assistance of training, if nothing else, the early war would be completely changed. If I were Churchill, I’d have British planes manufactured in the US under license, and work on joint development of better planes ASAP.
The Second Happy Time would have been prevented and that much of the 3.1 million tons of war material delivered to the UK.
The problem is that you are focusing too much on individual battles where the key benefits are completely different as pointed out previously.
How? Stalin didn’t believe him even with his own NKVD telling him attack was imminent.
Need the political clout to do that, though. Roosevelt was already on side, so barring him revealing his sources how much more could he do manufacturing wise? He already had his Arsenal of Democracy policy. However as CinC I think he would do much more to recruit and train up America’s armed forces, knowing the details of their engagements.
It doesn’t appear that you understand the power of what you have given Churchill. This was not simply a timeline but provides enough information for Allied Planners to extensively analyze Axis strategies, tactics, weapons (in a general sense) and results as well as their own.
Look at the ongoing fight against the ISIS. Please tell me you can understand how completely differently the US and other allies would handle this if Obama were handed a future historical account of what happens.
The uncertainty makes clear decisions impossible, both for those fighting the ISIS now and the Allies in WWII.
Had Churchill known what would happen,believe me he would find a way to make it happen. Obviously, you don’t show the books for the future to Stalin, but you tell him that you have damn good spies worldwise and make some highly accurate “predictions” about events in the short future. You tell him, for example, that Fumimaro Konoe is to be the PM of Japan.
You inform him about the Italians in Africa. Whatever.
The point is, that because the uncertainty of events has been removed, and although small details will change, you already know several key points:
Historically that the Germans will attack the USSR in June of 1941. The Soviets will be unprepared and will suffer tremendously.
The Japanese will attack Western powers in December of the same year.
What it takes to defeat them.
By understanding these three key points, you work backwards. You find the way to convince Stalin that exporting the key resources is slitting his own throat. You find ways of getting him to cooperate.
As you change actions, the historical timeline changes, so predicting that the Battle of the Bulge will occur is meaningless. However, you know understand the key importance of aviation, for example, so you devote more resources to it faster.
I wonder if going after Italy harder at first, and secretly negotiating with their generals could get them to switch sides faster, and in such a way that would prevent Germany from occupying it. That would be another game changer.
Again, you aren’t looking at this very deeply. His vacillations were not because he couldn’t decide who to support, it was because he didn’t know what would happen when. He had hoped that the US could stay out of the war. Knowing that it couldn’t would have made the complete difference.
The US did not need to go to a complete war footing in July, 1940. It would not have taken that much to have made a complete difference in the Pacific War. The amount required would have been well within Roosevelt’s power himself or what he could negotiate with the Republicans.
I specified aircraft because that is something which would have had extremely high payoff at a low political and economic cost.
Among other things, you don’t want to give the goods to Churchill, who was a genius who believed in his own genius and was kept in line by the likes of Marshall and Eisenhower who diplomatically reminded him of Gallipoli whenever he had a great suggestion. Such as, when Winnie suggested invading Crete, Marshall reponded, “Not one American boy is going to die on that goddamned rock.” Churchill was a great leader when reminded what his limits were: about a bottle of Cognac a day. Leave him to the speeches and managing the UK forces internally. He was a genius at those things.
I would have to presume that because of the nature of the gift from the future, that a select team of US and British experts would study it. Obviously, it would be a small team, but it would be silly to only have one person.
Another advantage for the Allies would be knowing which generals to pick and which to toss ahead of time. (Sorry Doug!)
Looking again at the timeline, it looks like Greece and Northern Africa would be the two battles where having detailed information would really make a difference. If those two outcomes were changed then the rest of the timelines and specific battles would be completely different.
Dunno why predicting Japanese actions informs Stalin that Churchill knows what the Germans were up to, but let run with it. Stalin would have probably berated Beria and had some folks shot for not figuring out the predictions, while dismissing anything out of Churchill’s mouth that in any way implied he should prepare for an attack as an attempt to provoke Hitler and drag the USSR prematurely into England’s war, while he preferred to let Germany and Britain weaken each other before making any noises that would give Hitler his ‘excuse’.
I acknowledged this already so I don’t know why you’re repeating this needlessly. It does depend on how early and often he uses the volumes though, probably very early and a lot.
Never said they were, quite the opposite, that he was committed to helping Churchill’s island as much as he could short of declaring war (and even then, waged an undeclared war in the North Atlantic). So the problem wouldn’t be Roosevelt, it was the Americans who hated the idea of being dragged into war, remember his campaign promise in 1940; “I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again; your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars”
He still has to work in the Congressional system, is what I mean.
Churchill was warning Stalin (via back channels) of the coming German invasion in 1941. (These warnings were based mostly on Ultra intercepts, but Churchill couldn’t reveal the scources of the intel.) Stalin did not believe the warnings, assuming that the British were lying in order to get the Soviets embroiled into WW2.
The US knew war was coming. The Two Ocean Navy Act of 1940. The war-winning aircraft designs (B29, P51, F4U, etc) were either already established, or well underway.
The only thing I can think of the US could have done sooner would be to establish the infrastructure for a massive industrial base expansion (as well as establishing all of the wartime govermental administrative organisations that will eventually be needed to oversee all that, and hammer out policy questions sooner). I don’t think the US public would have been willing to stop production of any luxury or civilian model industrial goods two years sooner (nor to go to rationing, either).
Crete might have been better handled though…
Churchill was always a fan of using Britain’s command of the sea, and the mobility it provides, to hit the enemy from unexpected directions (I just finished reading about the Dardanelles). Even if Churchill did not send precious few troops to Greece in 1941, doesn’t mean he stops from dreaming up some other foul-up of an operation to get involved in. (He had sometimes toyed with an idea of an invasion of Norway, for example, to outflank Germany to the North.)
Damnit, this is a late reply, because I had had an extensive reply almost completed last week and my wife had closed the tab.
I’ll redo it a little quicker.
(my emphasis)
I’m not really sure why you are posting this hypotheticals if you aren’t interested in responding to a serious discussion.
From my post, which I spend a fair amount of time thinking about, you pick one thing, which I had already qualified with a “or whatever” and further explained my reasoning.
This is my post up to the point you cherry picked a little comment to criticize.
Out of this, the only thing you could comprehend is “Tell him about Konoe?”
Can you give me a good reason to engage in a discussion with you?
